Our Mister Brooks And The Messianic Mr. Putin

Illustration by DonkeyHotey for The Politics Blog (Based on Images from the AP)

Moral Hazard, the Irish setter owned for photo-op purposes by New York Times columnist David Brooks, lazily readjusted himself on the floor of the pantry of the Young Fogies Club on 57th Street in Manhattan. He had been back for a month from the farm to which he had been sent while Master was on "book leave." He had settled into his old routine faster than he'd thought he would. Jose, the sous-chef, had greeted him with an enthusiastic pat on the head and a bowl full of pate scraps from the night before. Even Douthat, the houseboy, had looked at him and smiled, briefly, before running off to empty the ashtrays again. The rhythm of his life reasserted itself quickly and, as he licked his balls is deep contemplation, Moral Hazard felt like he was home again.

The clubroom was abuzz this morning. Some members were talking about a new Cold War. Other members were talking about how good Vladimir Putin looked without a shirt, and Moral Hazard stayed away from this bunch, because he thought they sounded a little skeevy. He wandered around the edges of the clubroom. trying to be inconspicuous, until he came to the great oak table on which the day's newspapers were always placed. The papers were scattered today. Some of them had slid off the table and onto the floor. Moral Hazard nudged one of these with his nose, and he noticed that Master had written a columnthat day. He lay down under the table and put his chin on the paper. He read two or three paragraphs before dozing off. He dreamed he was a Ukrainian police dog, standing at the border of the Crimea, and snarling lowly but meaningfully at the Russian troops while his handler, a young, tough blond soldier, stood above him. Yeah, thought Moral Hazard, that'd be cool.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

To enter into the world of Putin's favorite philosophers is to enter a world full of melodrama, mysticism and grandiose eschatological visions. "We trust and are confident that the hour will come when Russia will rise from disintegration and humiliation and begin an epoch of new development and greatness," Ilyin wrote. Three great ideas run through this work. The first is Russian exceptionalism: the idea that Russia has its own unique spiritual status and purpose. The second is devotion to the Orthodox faith. The third is belief in autocracy. Mashed together, these philosophers point to a Russia that is a quasi-theocratic nationalist autocracy destined to play a culminating role on the world stage.

One gets the impression," Brooks wrote just days after the invasion began, "that U.S. military dominance is now so overwhelming that the rules of conflict are being rewritten." He derided the "ludicrous Vietnam comparisons [and] rampant quagmire forebodings" of namby-pambies not sharing his euphoria. The president's decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Brooks felt certain, "represents what the United States is on earth to achieve. Thank God we have the political leaders and the military capabilities to realize the ideals that have always been embodied in our founding documents."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

On February 6, 2003:

Which made me think that maybe we are being ethnocentric. As good, naive Americans, we think that if only we can show the world the seriousness of the threat Saddam poses, then they will embrace our response. In our good, innocent way, we assume that in persuading our allies we are confronted with a problem of understanding. But suppose we are confronted with a problem of courage? Perhaps the French and the Germans are simply not brave enough to confront Saddam. . . . Or suppose we are confronted with a problem of character? Perhaps the French and the Germans understand the risk Saddam poses to the world order. Perhaps they know that they are in danger as much as anybody. They simply would rather see American men and women-rather than French and German men and women-dying to preserve their safety. . . . Far better, from this cynical perspective, to signal that you will not take on the terrorists-so as to earn their good will amidst the uncertain times ahead.

Or January 29, 2003:

This was speech as autobiography. President Bush once again revealed his character, and demonstrated why so many Americans, whether they agree with this or that policy proposal, basically trust him and feel he shares their values. Most Americans will not follow the details of this or that line in the address. But they will go about their day on Wednesday knowing that whatever comes in the next few months, they have a good leader at the helm.

Or, finally, March 17, 2003:

So now we stand at an epochal moment. The debate is over. The case has gone to the jury, and the jury is history. Events will soon reveal who was right, Bush or Chirac. . . . But there are two nations whose destinies hang in the balance. The first, of course, is Iraq. Will Iraqis enjoy freedom, more of the same tyranny, or a new kind of tyranny? The second is the United States. If the effort to oust Saddam fails, we will be back in the 1970s. We will live in a nation crippled by self-doubt. If we succeed, we will be a nation infused with confidence. We will have done a great thing for the world, and other great things will await.

And, in the wrestling match with history, David Brooks gets hit with another folding chair. Sometimes I wonder,in all his vast spaces for entertaining, whether he's ever bothered to hang a mirror.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.